The spectacular eruption of an undersea volcano off the coast of Tonga in the South Pacific in 2009

Perhaps in an effort to ward off yet another long cold winter, officially-sanctioned climate science has been pumping out hot air at exponentially-increasing rates of late. An IPCC report in September told us that global warming "paused" unexpectedly in 1998, and shows no sign of resuming. Actually, the work that went into that report found that warming had stopped altogether, but the wording was altered to describe it as a "pause". You'd think that a pseudo-acknowledgement like this from on-high would dampen the Global Warmists' enthusiasm, but you'd be wrong.

Their driven need to 'fit the facts around the policy' is illustrated by a couple of recent articles that caught our eye. HereUSA Today reports on the findings of a study that claims:

"The middle depths of a part of the Pacific Ocean have warmed 15 times faster in the past 60 years than they did during the previous 10,000 years."

Then this BBC article cites "the world's leading experts on ocean acidification", who claim that:

"The world's oceans are becoming acidic at an unprecedented rate and may be souring more rapidly than at any time in the past 300 million years, [...] causing a 30% loss of species in some ocean ecosystems."

And, as you can probably guess, these experts are certain that it's all your fault.

Take note that the Pacific Ocean data they used to come up with this "warming 15 times faster than ever" claim concerns the middle depths of the Pacific Ocean. Meanwhile, another study published back in August reported that the Pacific Ocean's surface temperatures are cooling. The warming middle depths were attributed to man-made CO2 being "pumped into" the ocean, while the cooling surface layers were attributed to "a natural warm and cold cycle."

What's it gonna be guys? Man-made climate change or a natural cycle? You can't have your cake and eat it!

But apparently they believe they can have it both ways, so the established sequence of cause-and-effect has been amended to the following: an increase in CO2, predominantly or solely caused by man, causes an increase in heat. That CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, which heats them up... except for the surface layers - that's nature's fault!

If we follow their reasoning to its logical conclusion, we would have to believe that the oceans are cooling by absorbing heat that is sinking down to lower layers!

When the lower-than-expected ocean surface temperatures were announced, climate scientists - as superbly economical with the truth as ever - suggested that the naturally-caused cooler surface ocean temperatures had "flattened out" the warmer 'human-caused' atmospheric temperatures and given us the appearance only of a "pause" in global warming!

But remember, in any event, the September IPCC report established that there never were any warmer atmospheric temperatures to begin with, so there was nothing for these cooler surface ocean temperatures to "flatten out"!

It's CO2 Jim, but not as we know it

What there is good evidence for, however, is increased CO2 levels, in both the oceans and the atmosphere.

As we've already noted, the experts are also telling us that ocean acidification, the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans due to increased absorption of CO2, has reached unprecedented levels. Now, it is assumed that this extra CO2 is coming from human activity, via the atmosphere.

But from where, you might be wondering, did they find the hard data to support their "300 million years" claim?

Studies carried out at deep sea vents where the waters are naturally acidic thanks to CO2, indicate that around 30% of the ocean's biodiversity may be lost by the end of this century.

These vents may be a "window on the future" according to the researchers. "You don't find a mollusc at the pH level expected for 2100, this is really quite a stunning fact," said Prof Gattuso. "It's an imperfect window, only the ocean's acidity is increasing at these sites, they don't reflect the warming we will see this century."

[...] The effect of acidity is currently being felt most profoundly in the Arctic and Antarctic oceans. These chilly waters hold more CO2 and increasing levels of the gas are turning them acidic more rapidly than the rest of the world.

The researchers conclude that human emissions of CO2 are clearly to blame.

[Emphases added]

Notice anything funky about this 'scientist's' understanding of a 'fact'?!

At most, human emissions of CO2 are in the 4-5% range of a gas that makes up 3% of the atmosphere. Humanity's potential contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is therefore statistically insignificant. Yes we have toxified the entire biosphere in every way imaginable, yes we treat our fellow Earthlings abominably, and yes, there is evidence that CO2 levels are higher than ever observed by modern man, but the notion that one tiny factor in a complex and interdependent system, one that transfers vast quantities of energy around the world, is responsible for the weather extremes and mass animal die-offs we've seen in recent years is utterly absurd.

There is not enough energy - in the form of either CO2 or heat, or both - above water to account for the changes happening underwater, so this energy must be coming from elsewhere. The IPCC's own charts illustrate the problem:

The mental gymnastics Global Warmists undertake to convince themselves that man-made CO2 is responsible for this are breath-taking. Commenting on the above IPCC chart, one green pundit in the Guardian writes:

Can you make out the tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure? That's the only part of the climate for which the warming has 'paused'. As the IPCC figure indicates, over 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans, and it continues at a rapid pace, equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second.

Ok... but in line with the September IPCC report, you need to explain to us how 90% of nothing (ie, the non-warming since 1998) translates into those large percentage increases in energy and CO2 in the oceans? Where does that energy and CO2 increase come from, if not from human activity, from land or from the atmosphere? They acknowledge that there is no atmospheric warming, so what then is boiling the oceans?

The answer is staring them in the face.

Rocking and rolling in the deep

A more rational explanation, and one that's far more serious in its implications for everyone today, whatever about people in 2100, is that increased quantities of CO2 and heat are coming up from below, i.e. passing up through the oceans from within the planet, heating and acidifying the planet's oceans.

The oceans' chemistry and temperature is probably changing due to direct contact with known, observable vectors of CO2, namely increasingly active and newly formed volcanic vents and underwater volcanoes on the sea floor. Volcanic activity has been steadily brewing and increasing above ground for years. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the planet's volcanoes are located underwater. With landslides, rifts and sinkholes opening up - swallowing cars, people and buildings along the way... can we even begin to imagine what is happening on the vast and relatively unexplored ocean floors?

Countless accidental discoveries of underwater vents, volcanoes, plumes and geysers have been made in recent years, many of which we've archived on SOTT. Here's just one example:

An enormous hydrothermal "megaplume" found in the Indian Ocean serves as a dramatic reminder that underwater volcanoes likely play an important role in shaping Earth's ocean systems, scientists report.

The plume, which stretches some 43.5 miles (70 kilometers) long, appears to be active on a previously unseen scale.

"In a nutshell, this thing is at least 10 times - or possibly 20 times - bigger than anything of its kind that's been seen before," said Bramley Murton of the British National Oceanography Centre. [...]

"A normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts, while this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It's like an atom bomb down there."

Remember what the September IPCC report said about all of the allegedly man-made global warming constituting the energy equivalent to "4 atom bombs"? Well here's just one underwater volcano approaching that level of energy all by itself! The volcanoes above water are erupting all over the place, so it's probably safe to assume that, combined with underwater volcanoes, the total energy involved here dwarfs even the IPCC's highest energy estimates for man-made warming.

As we write, the Ring of Fire is super-active, with dozens of new and 'dormant' volcanoes erupting on a weekly basis. New islands formed off Japan and Pakistan in recent months, while new underwater volcanoes are being discovered all the time:

Scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) have discovered previously unknown volcanoes in the ocean waters around the remote South Sandwich Islands.

Using ship-borne sea-floor mapping technology during research cruises onboard the RRS James Clark Ross, the scientists found 12 volcanoes beneath the sea surface -- some up to 3km high. They found 5km diameter craters left by collapsing volcanoes and 7 active volcanoes visible above the sea as a chain of islands.

Methane is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2and both are stored in vast deposits in the form of clathrates under the ocean floors, particularly at the poles. These deposits are being ruptured by the increased volcanic activity (and accompanying seismic activity), then dissolving into the ocean depths, and are currently outgassing at levels that have observers seriously concerned because they know from the geological record that this happens during real climate change, which, like a phase transition, builds up to an abrupt and invariably catastrophic climate shift:

Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas which can lead to unchecked and rapid climate change, has been referred to as "the canary in the coal mine" and its release has been theorized to have caused past mass extinctions, known as the the "clathrate gun hypothesis."

Many scientists believe that a sudden release of methane clathrates in the past from the seabed and permafrost led to a sudden rise in global temperatures, also known as "abrupt climate change." Large amounts of methane being released can lead to a runaway process that is irreversible, much like "firing a gun." Abrupt climate change can cause global temperatures to change within a matter of years.

We can discount the part about "runaway temperatures" because while the deep layers of oceans may be warming, the upper layers are not, and neither is the atmosphere, and...Newsflash! it is the upper layers of the oceans that carry warmth to land masses! If the upper layers are cooling, what effect do we think that might have on our climate, in the Northern Hemisphere for example? Has no one noticed the severe winters over North America, Northern Europe and Asia over the past few years? In addition, the ice core data tells us that methane spikes are signatures marking the boundaries between glacial and interglacial periods.

No discussion about the real causes of 'climate change' would be complete without mentioning Earth's celestial visitors. With Comet ISON currently approaching perihelion, and at least four other comets in close proximity, their connection to the dramatic increase in volcanic eruptions and seismic activity in the past couple of days is completely overlooked by the authorities' myopic reassurances that none of them pose a threat to us because we're not directly in their line of sight and ignores the potential for celestial objects to exert influence on our environment indirectly, at-a-distance.

But really, should we expect any different given that NASA et al were caught completely by surprise when the largest comet fragment since Tunguska exploded over southern Russia just 9 months ago?

Comet dust is electrically-charged so it in turn may also be causing the Earth's rotation to slow down slightly, as observed on Venus and Saturn. Such slowing of the rotation could be responsible for reducing the strength of the planet's magnetic field, exposing the planet to more dangerous cosmic radiation and stimulating even more volcanism.

More volcanic activity means more moisture is evaporated, and more dust and CO2 is released into the atmosphere. Combined with a lower, cooler upper atmosphere that is loading with comet dust (a.k.a. 'meteor smoke') from the significant increase in comets reaching the inner solar system in recent years, expect to see even greater weather extremes than we've already had to face in recent years. Eventually a threshold may be reached, at which point heavy rainfall becomes heavy snowfall and ice age conditions set in for the long term.

In the meantime, disregard the Warmists' tepid scenario of gradual inundation of coastlines over the next hundred years due to non-existent man-made global warming, prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

The climate is changing alright, but it's not warming, and it certainly isn't your fault.

Doug DiPasquale is a Holistic Nutritionist, Paleo enthusiast and health journalist living in Toronto, Canada. He's a regular contributor for SOTT.net, Dot Connector Magazine, the Huffington Post Canada, The Food Network Canada and has contributed to many other blogs and online publications. He's passionate about the food we eat, exposing the lies and faulty thinking of the "food police" and informing the public about how to eat real food, ie. replacing that wheatgrass shot with bacon.

Reader Comments

It really shows the complexity of climate change and exposes the global warming climate scam with scientific facts. And it also makes it clear that real climate change is happening, one which only very few are prepared for.

Also so called greenhouse gasses cool the atmosphere. Even the IPCC conceeds this occurs in the extreme upper atmosphere.

The mechanism is straightforward: Only about 1.7W/m^2 of the outgoing energy is radiated back to the Earth's surface by CO2 which is negligible compared to the roughly 1500W/m^2 solar incoming radiation.

Most thermal energy leaves the Earth's surface by either radiation at non GHG frequencies or via conduction, convection or the latent heat of evaporation of water However because GHGs can convert thermal energy to radiation more efficiently than non-GHGs because of additional vibrational states, extra thermal energy in the atmosphere is converted to radiation by GHGs. Half is emitted with a downward component and half with an upward component to the radiations direction. This radiation is being continually absorbed and re-emiited. However this does not result in a directionally neutral net flux as the mean free path between emission and absorbtion events increases in the upwards direction and decreases in the downwards direction so the net atmospheric radiation flux travels upwards at considerable velocities tending to cool the atmosphere by losing radiation to space. The effect is strongly self limiting as a cooling atmosphere radiates less so GHGs act as a thermostat to atmospheric temperatures. The effect also seriously limits the height from which downwelling "back radiation" can reach the Earth being almost zero from 200 metres. In any event atmospheric temperatures are set by the derived lapse rate law which operates below the Tropopause in full so while the cooling of the troposphere due to GHGs increases in efficiency with height the effect of the height enhanced cooling is transmitted right down to sea level.

GHGs in effect produce slight cooling of the atmosphere by being more efficient at converting theremal energy into radiation and pumping it out into space. Fortunately this effect is self limiting so I do not expect the naturally increasing CO2 levels (not manmade see Beck and also Salby) to trigger an Ice Age or contribute significantly to the ongoing and significant cooling of the planet which is currently running at 1.8 degrees Celcius per century.

At the moment the jury is out on whether the current decline in global temperatures will result in a return to a new Little Ice Age (Landscheidt and many others) or a return to a Grand Regular Cycle (Jaeger and various). I am hoping Jaeger is right, the consequences of a new LIA would be pretty dreadful.

Quote: "Comet dust is electrically-charged so it in turn may also be causing the Earth's rotation to slow down slightly". This sounds like complete drivel.

>> Quote: "Comet dust is electrically-charged so it in turn may also be causing the Earth's rotation to slow down slightly". This sounds like complete drivel. <<

Would you dare to say why?

The issue of Earth's rotation slowing down is very complex and many factors play in. The whole process is electro-magnetic in nature. Since the comet dust IS electrically charged, why would a hypothesis about its influence be, as you say, a drivel?

Whereas the dayside of the magnetosphere extends only 65,000 kilometers away from Earth, on the nightside, the magnetic field in the magnetottail extends over 6,300,000 kilometers in length. The highly asymmetric shape of the magnetosphere keeps its grand axis "locked" in line with the direction of the solar wind; the Earth's magnetotail is locked in the nightside of the Earth.

The diagram below shows the electromotive force, also known as Lorentz force (F – green arrow), which is proportional to the atmospheric current (I – red arrow). Therefore, the Earth's rate of rotation is proportional to the intensity of the electric current between the ionosphere and the Earth. Consequently, a decrease in this current intensity leads to a decrease in the Lorentz force and therefore a decrease in the Earth's rate of rotation. Thus the current decrease in solar activity should cause, at the very least, an infinitesimal slowdown in the planet's rotation.

In 1979, Robert G. Curie confirmed that Earth’s spin was linked to solar activity and concluded that the “solar sunspot cycle in Earth has been detected”. The correlation between the Earth’s rotation cycle and the 11-year solar cycle has been demonstrated by physicist Robert G. Curie who calculated the Coherency level between the Earth’s rotation cycle and the solar cycle and concluded that the variation in Earth’s rotation follows a 10.7-year cycle similar to the Sun’s cycle.

The higher concentration of cometary dust in the atmosphere may also contribute to the Earth's slowdown, by increasing the drag exerted by the atmosphere over the planet, i.e. the drag between the stator and the rotor. Here we are not so much talking about mechanical drag per se (friction, for example) than electrical drag. When dust is present, the small atmospheric ions attach to these relatively large dust particles and lose mobility. In addition, because of the atmospheric vertical electric field, these now charged particles tend to be polarized and align themselves with the atmospheric field : their positive side points down towards the Earth’s negative surface and their negative side points upwards towards the positive ionosphere.

If the Earth was not spinning, opposite charges would attract and the polarized particles would stay perfectly aligned along the atmospheric E-field. But the Earth’s spinning disrupts this alignment and tends to disorganize the particles. The energy necessary to induce this particle agitation is equal to the amount of kinetic energy lost by our planet, hence the contribution to the above-mentioned infinitesimal slowdown.

But here: Let us add these coefficients and gradients, some quadrants and some terrestrials; put some more colors on it, enhance it three-dimensionally, no, four-dimensionally, five-dimensionally. A little sugar a little spice. Pickling salt and vinegar. Now, some bat's wings and crow's beaks....a four-leaf clover.

I'm glad Mr. B wrote it and not Carefix, as the data doesn't need to put the reader to sleep to affect the necessary change, unless that 'change' is of a different vector??? In which case, who is confusing who? and why? Mr. C's argument reminds me of all those WallStreet scientists called economists. They are a fun bunch aren't they? Scientists don't have to be funny, but it seems so many are? Or is that a requisite for official employment?

One side likes to keep it simple, the other side like to keep it complex, is that because, as George Jr put it: "It's hard work."? If it isn't so 'hard', it seems just about anyone can do it and then where would control of the herd be?

4% of 4%? Kinda hard to pay much attention to that without lots of persuasion, and not the friendly kind.

to pretend we are not experiencing extreme record breaking weather events at an increasing rate .. is being willfully ignorant, and to pretend that just because it snows somewhere, there is nothing to worry about, is stupid.

perhaps man is not 100% responsible for what is happening, but to pretend we can abuse this planet as much as we like and it will have no consequence.. again, stupid.

Yes. It sounds like complete drivel. Of course the supposed mechanism is not explained or quantified. Hence "sounds like". The big problem I have is that slowing the Earth's rotation takes a considerable amount of energy so given that the electric field falls off with the inverse square of distance and that it seems to be charged particles of unspecified charge (+ve,-ve, quantity) they would not seem to have sufficient kinetic energy to me to anything at all to the Earth's rotation. I cannot imagine them stirring a whisker on a Gnats chin. I am open to the "new physics" if you can give me a link?

Who needs science? CO2 can create energy all by it's lonesome without having to give up any atomic mass: split/fuse nuclei.
In that way, Global Warming by CO2 emission replaces the law that "energy is neither created nor destroyed".
A magic multiplier then ensues, where each time a CO2 molecule releases it's energy captured from sunlight, it needs no more sunlight to then release the same energy multiple times. So, if the Sun warms Earth with X units of energy (photons), CO2 then bounces those photons multiple times, thereby creating 3x units of energy (photons).
So if you believe a molecule of CO2 is capable of this stunning feat, then you must also believe that Einstein was wrong: E does not equal M * V^2.

Here, then, I present to you the invention of the millennium:
Take a greenhouse, fill it with elevated levels of CO2, install your solar panels which will then produce gobs of extra electricity, and you have your Green Energy Revolution signed, sealed and delivered.
No more greasy petroleum stuff.

"You'd think that a pseudo-acknowledgement like this from on-high would dampen the Global Warmists' enthusiasm, but you'd be wrong.

Their driven need to 'fit the facts around the policy' is illustrated by a couple of recent articles that caught our eye."

Right on cue, National Geographic's recent cover story was "Rising Seas" featuring a cover with the Statue of Liberty half-way underwater--an image ironically conveying the truth about America even as they perpetuate the lies about global warming:

"...the total volume of seawater is increasing. Global warming drives that in two basic ways: by warming the ocean and by melting ice on land, which adds more water. Since 1900 global sea level has risen about eight inches. It’s now rising at about an eighth of an inch a year—and accelerating."

I'd go further and call CO2 a cooling gas (based on the physics of entropy). Increased warming for whatever reason causes release of CO2 from oceans, which then cools them. This fits data closely. Cooling then causes CO2 carry of water to increase, reducing the cooling effect. CO2 goes from being a nightmare positive feedback gas leading to inevitable cooking once released to being a regulatory gas that buffers the planet from thermal change

The megaplume is on the Carlsberg Ridge between 61°30E, 5°41′N and 60°33′E, 6°20′N

They have also found that "the western tropical Indian Ocean has been warming for more than a century, at a rate faster than any other region of the tropical oceans, and has attained the warm pool SST values of 28.0°C. While the warm pool went through a warming of 0.7°C, the western basin experienced anomalous increase of 1.2°C in summer SSTs (Sea Surface Temperatures)."

Sources:

Detection of an unusually large hydrothermal event plume above the slow-spreading Carlsberg Ridge: NW Indian Ocean